Welfare dependency

Last updated

Welfare dependency is the state in which a person or household is reliant on government welfare benefits for their income for a prolonged period of time, and without which they would not be able to meet the expenses of daily living. The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines welfare dependency as the proportion of all individuals in families which receive more than 50 percent of their total annual income from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. [1] Typically viewed as a social problem, it has been the subject of major welfare reform efforts since the mid-20th century, primarily focused on trying to make recipients self-sufficient through paid work. While the term "welfare dependency" can be used pejoratively, for the purposes of this article it shall be used to indicate a particular situation of persistent poverty.

Contents

Discourses of dependency and the history of a social problem

Terminology

The term "welfare dependency" is itself controversial, often carrying derogatory connotations or insinuations that the recipient is unwilling to work (or un-incentivised). [2] Historian Michael B. Katz discussed the discourses surrounding poverty in his 1989 book The Undeserving Poor, where he elaborated upon the distinctions Americans make between so-called "deserving" recipients of aid, such as widows, and "undeserving" ones, like single-parent mothers, with the distinction being that the former have fallen upon hard times through no fault of their own whereas the latter are seen as having chosen to live on the public purse. [3] Drawing this dichotomy diverts attention from the structural factors that cause and entrench poverty, such as economic change. Instead of focusing on how to tackle the root causes of poverty, people focus on attacking the supposed poor character of the recipient. In his 1995 book The War Against the Poor, Columbia University sociology professor Herbert Gans asserted that the label welfare recipient, when used to malign a poor person, transforms the individual's experience of being in poverty into a personal failing while ignoring positive aspects of their character. [4] For example, Gans writes, “That a welfare recipient may be a fine mother becomes irrelevant; the label assumes that she, like all others in her family, is a bad mother, and she is given no chance to prove otherwise.” [5] In this way, structural factors that cause a person to be reliant on benefit payments for the majority of his or her income are in essence ignored because the problem is seen as situated within the person, not society. To describe a person as welfare dependent can therefore be interpreted as blaming the victim, depending on context. [6] The term "welfare-reliant," as used by Edin and Lein (1996), can describe the same concept.

Welfare, long-term reliance, and policy

There is a great deal of overlap between discourses of welfare dependency and the stereotype of the welfare queen, in that long-term welfare recipients are often seen as draining public resources they have done nothing to earn, as well as stereotyped as doing nothing to improve their situation, choosing to draw benefits when there are alternatives available. This contributes to stigmatization of welfare recipients. While the stereotype of a long-term welfare recipient involves not wanting to work, in reality a large proportion of welfare recipients are engaged in some form of paid work but still cannot make ends meet.[ citation needed ]

Attention was drawn to the issue of long-term reliance on welfare in the Moynihan Report. Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued that in the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, urban Black Americans would still suffer disadvantage and remain entrenched in poverty due to the decay of the family structure. [7] Moynihan wrote, “The steady expansion of welfare programs can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.” The relatively high proportion of Black families headed by single-parent mothers, along with the high proportion of children born out of wedlock, was seen as a pernicious social problem  – one leading to long-term poverty and consequently reliance on welfare benefits for income, as there would be no male breadwinner working while the mother took care of her children.

From 1960 to 1975, both the percentage of families headed by single-parent mothers and reliance on welfare payments increased. At the same time, research began indicating that the majority of people living below the poverty line experienced only short spells of poverty, casting doubt on the notion of an entrenched underclass. [8] For example, a worker who lost his job might be categorized as poor for a few months prior to re-entering full-time employment, and he or she would be much less likely to end up in a situation of long-term poverty than a single-parent mother with little formal education, even if both were considered “poor” for statistical purposes.

In 1983, researchers Mary Jo Bane and David T. Ellwood used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to examine the duration of spells of poverty (defined as continuous periods spent with income under the poverty line), looking specifically at entry and exit. They found that while three in five people who were just beginning a spell of poverty came out of it within three years, only one-quarter of people who had already been poor for three years were able to exit poverty within the next two. [8] The probability that a person will be able to exit poverty declines as the spell lengthens. A small but significant group of recipients remained on welfare for much longer, forming the bulk of poverty at any one point in time and requiring the most in government resources. At any one time, if a cross-sectional sample of poor people in the United States was taken, about 60% would be in a spell of poverty that would last at least eight years. [8] Interest thus arose in studying the determinants of long-term receipt of welfare. Bane & Ellwood found that only 37% of poor people in their sample became poor as a result of the head of household's wages decreasing, and their average spell of poverty lasted less than four years. On the other hand, entry into poverty that was the result of a woman becoming head of household lasted on average for more than five years. Children born into poverty were particularly likely to remain poor. [8]

Reform: the rise of workfare

In the popular imagination, welfare became seen as something that the poor had made into a lifestyle rather than a safety net. The federal government had been urging single-parent mothers with children to take on paid work in an effort to reduce welfare rolls since the introduction of the WIN Program in 1967, [9] but in the 1980s this emphasis became central to welfare policy. Emphasis turned toward personal responsibility and the attainment of self-sufficiency through work.

Conservative views of welfare dependency, coming from the perspective of classical economics, argued that individual behaviors and the policies that reward them lead to the entrenchment of poverty. Lawrence M. Mead's 1986 book Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship argued that American welfare was too permissive, giving out benefit payments without demanding anything from poor people in return, particularly not requiring the recipient to work. Mead viewed this as directly linked to the higher incidence of social problems among poor Americans, more as a cause than an effect of poverty:

"[F]ederal programs have special difficulties in setting standards for their recipients. They seem to shield their clients from the threats and rewards that stem from private society – particularly the marketplace – while providing few sanctions of their own. The recipients seldom have to work or otherwise function to earn whatever income, service, or benefit a program gives; meager though it may be, they receive it essentially as an entitlement. Their place in American society is defined by their need and weakness, not their competence. This lack of accountability is among the reasons why nonwork, crime, family breakup, and other problems are much commoner among recipients than Americans generally." [10]

Charles Murray argued that American social policy ignored people's inherent tendency to avoid hard work and be amoral, and that from the War on Poverty onward the government had given welfare recipients disincentives to work, marry, or have children in wedlock. His 1984 book Losing Ground was also highly influential in the welfare reforms of the 1990s.

In 1983, Bane & Ellwood found that one-third of single-parent mothers exited poverty through work, indicating that it was possible for employment to form a route out of reliance on welfare even for this particular group. Overall, four in five exits from poverty could be explained by an increase in earnings, according to their data. The idea of combining welfare reform with work programs in order to reduce long-term dependency received bipartisan support during the 1980s, culminating in the signing of the Family Support Act in 1988. [11] This Act aimed to reduce the number of AFDC recipients, enforce child support payments, and establish a welfare-to-work program. One major component was the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, which provided remedial education and was specifically targeted to teenage mothers and recipients who had been on welfare for six years or more – those populations considered most likely to be welfare dependent. [9] JOBS was to be administered by the states, with federal government matching up to a capped level of funding. A lack of resources, particularly in relation to financing and case management, stymied JOBS. However, in 1990, expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), first enacted in 1975, offered working poor families with children an incentive to remain in work. Also in that year, federal legislation aimed at providing child care to families who would otherwise be dependent on welfare aided single-parent mothers in particular. [9]

Welfare reform during the Clinton presidency placed time limits on benefit receipt, replacing Aid for Families with Dependent Children and the JOBS program with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and requiring that recipients begin to work after two years of receiving these payments. Such measures were intended to decrease welfare dependence: The House Ways and Means Committee stated that the goal of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was to "reduce the length of welfare spells by attacking dependency while simultaneously preserving the function of welfare as a safety net for families experiencing temporary financial problems." [12] This was a direct continuation of the line of thinking that had been prevalent in the 1980s, where personal responsibility was emphasized. TANF was administered by individual states, with funding coming from federal block grants. However, resources were not adjusted for inflation, caseload changes, or state spending changes. [13] Unlike its predecessor AFDC, TANF had as its explicit goal the formation and maintenance of two-parent families and the prevention of out-of-wedlock births, reflecting the discourses that had come to surround long-term welfare receipt. [14]

One shortcoming of workfare-based reform was that it did not take into account the fact that, due to welfare benefits often not paying enough to meet basic needs, a significant proportion of mothers on welfare already worked "off the books" to generate extra income without losing their welfare entitlements. [15] Neither welfare nor work alone could provide enough money for daily expenses; only by combining the two could the recipients provide for themselves and their children. Even though working could make a woman eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, the amount was not enough to make up for the rest of her withdrawn welfare benefits. Work also brought with it related costs, such as transportation and child care. Without fundamental changes in the skill profile of the average single-parent mother on welfare to address structural changes in the economy, or a significant increase in pay for low-skilled work, withdrawing welfare benefits and leaving women with only work income meant that many faced a decline in overall income. Sociologists Kathryn Edin and Laura Lein interviewed mothers on welfare in Chicago, Charleston, Boston, and San Antonio, and found that while working mothers generally had more income left over after paying rent and food than welfare mothers did, the former were still worse-off financially because of the costs associated with work. [15] Despite strong support for the idea that work will provide the income and opportunity to help people become self-sufficient, this approach has not alleviated the need for welfare payments in the first place: In 2005, approximately 52% of TANF recipients lived in a family with at least one working adult. [16]

Types of Welfare State Regimes

In examining the welfare state, Gøsta Esping-Andersen identifies three distinct 'regimes' grounded in the legacy of classical political economy, each with unique approaches to welfare provision and societal impact. The liberal welfare state regime, characterized by minimal state intervention, prioritizes market solutions and individual responsibility, often resulting in a stratified system where benefits are typically means-tested and modest. The conservative regime, influenced by corporatist and traditional values, offers status-differentiated benefits, preserving existing social hierarchies and often tying individuals' welfare entitlements to their employment history and status. Lastly, the social democratic regime promotes an extensive redistribution of wealth and universal welfare provisions, aiming to de-commodify social services and ensure broad access regardless of individual market position. This regime type is distinguished by its commitment to equality and comprehensive social protection. Esping-Andersen's analysis highlights the profound influence of political and economic ideologies on the formation of welfare policies, demonstrating how welfare states not only reflect but also reinforce the stratification of society. [17]

Measuring dependency

The United States Department of Health and Human Services defines ten indicators of welfare dependency: [1]

In 2005, the department estimated that 3.8% of the American population could be considered dependent on welfare, calculated as having more than half of their family's income coming from TANF, food stamps, and/or SSDI payments, down from 5.2% in 1996. [16] As 15.3% of the population was in receipt of welfare benefits in 2005, it follows that approximately one-quarter of welfare recipients are considered dependent as per the official measures. In general, measures of welfare dependence are assessed alongside the statistics for poverty in general. [16]

Government measures of welfare dependence include welfare benefits associated with work. If such benefits were excluded from calculations, the dependency rate would be lower. [18]

Welfare Receipt and Dependence.gif

Risk factors

Demographic

Welfare dependence in the United States is typically associated with female-headed households with children. [19] Mothers who have never been married are more likely to stay on welfare for long periods of time than their counterparts who have ever been married, including women who became separated or divorced from their partners. [20] In her study using data from the 1984 Survey of Income and Program Participation, Patricia Ruggles found that 40% of never-married mothers remained on welfare for more than two years, and that while the median time spent on welfare for ever-married women was only 8 months, for never-married women it was between 17 and 18 months. [20] Statistics from 2005 show that while only 1% of people living in married-couple families could be classified as welfare-dependent as per the government definition, 14% of people in single-parent family mothers were dependent. [21]

Teenage mothers in particular are susceptible to having to rely on welfare for long periods of time because their interruption in schooling combined with the responsibilities of childrearing prevent them from gaining employment; there is no significant difference between single-parent and married teenage mothers because their partners are likely to be poor as well. [22] While many young and/or single-parent mothers do seek work, their relatively low skill levels along with the burdens of finding appropriate childcare hurt their chances of remaining employed. [11]

Black women are more likely than their White counterparts to be lone parents, which partially explains their higher rate of welfare dependency. At the time of the Moynihan Report, approximately one-quarter of Black households were headed by women, compared to about one in ten White households. [23] Ruggles’ data analysis found that, in 1984, the median time on welfare for nonwhite recipients was just under 16 months, while for White recipients it was approximately 8 months. [20] One year earlier, Bane & Ellwood found that the average duration of a new spell of poverty for a Black American was approximately seven years, compared to four years for Whites. In 2005, official statistics stated that 10.2% of Black Americans were welfare dependent, compared to 5.7% of Hispanics and 2.2% of non-Hispanic Whites. [21]

William Julius Wilson, in The Truly Disadvantaged, explained that a shrinking pool of “marriageable” Black men, thanks to increasing unemployment brought about by structural changes in the economy, leads to more Black women remaining unmarried. [24] However, there is no evidence that welfare payments themselves provide an incentive for teenage girls to have children or for Black women to remain unmarried. [25]

There is an association between a parent's welfare dependency and that of her children; a mother's welfare participation increases the likelihood that her daughter, when grown, will also be dependent on welfare. The mechanisms through which this happens may include the child's lessened feelings of stigma related to being on welfare, lack of job opportunities because he or she did not observe a parent's participation in the labor market, and detailed knowledge of how the welfare system works imprinted from a young age. [26] In some cases, the unemployment trap may function as a perverse incentive to remain dependent on welfare payments, as returning to work would not significantly increase household earnings as welfare benefits are withdrawn, and the associated costs and stressors would outweigh any benefits. This trap can be eliminated through the addition of work subsidies. [27]

Other factors which entrench welfare dependency, particularly for women, include lack of affordable childcare, low education and skill levels, and unavailability of suitable jobs. [19] Research has found that women who have been incarcerated also have high rates of social welfare receipt, especially if they were incarcerated in state prison rather than in county jail. [28]

Structural economic factors

Kasarda and Ting (1996) argue that poor people become trapped in dependency on welfare due to a lack of skills along with spatial mismatch. [29] Post-WWII, American cities have produced a surplus of high-skilled jobs which are beyond the reach of most urban welfare recipients, who do not have the appropriate skills. This is in large part due to fundamental inequalities in the quality of public education, which are themselves traceable to class disparities because school funding is heavily reliant on local property taxes. Meanwhile, low-skilled jobs have decreased within the city, moving out toward more economically advantageous suburban locations. Under the spatial mismatch hypothesis, reductions in urban welfare dependence, particularly among Blacks, would rely on giving potential workers access to suitable jobs in affluent suburbs. [30] This would require changes in policies related not only to welfare, but to housing and transportation, to break down barriers to employment.

Without appropriate jobs, it can be argued using rational choice theory that welfare recipients would make the decision to do what is economically advantageous to them, which often means not taking low-paid work that would require expensive childcare and lengthy commutes. [2] This would explain dependence on welfare over work. However, a large proportion of welfare recipients are also in some form of work, which casts doubt on this viewpoint.

The persistence of racism

One perspective argues that structural problems, particularly persistent racism, have concentrated disadvantage among urban Black residents and thus caused their need to rely on long-term welfare payments. [31] Housing policies segregated Black Americans into impoverished neighborhoods and formally blocked avenues to quality education and high-paying employment. Economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s did not alleviate poverty, largely because wages remained stagnant while the availability of low-skilled but decent-paying jobs disappeared from American urban centers. Poverty could be alleviated by better-targeted economic policies as well as concerted efforts to penalize racial discrimination. However, William Julius Wilson, in The Truly Disadvantaged, urges caution in initiating race-based programs as there is evidence they may not benefit the poorest Black people, which would include people who have been on welfare for long periods of time.

The design of certain social welfare programs inherently disadvantage Black communities. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has been historically disproportionately harmful to black women, specifically because of the program's requirements and time limits. [32] The sanctions for not meeting the rules of the program or a certain time limit resulted in a higher likelihood for black and brown women to lose benefits in comparison to white women. [32]

Cultural

Oscar Lewis introduced a theory of a culture of poverty in the late 1950s, initially in the context of anthropological studies in Mexico. However, the idea gained currency and influenced the Moynihan Report. This perspective argues that poverty is perpetuated by a value system different from that of mainstream society, influenced by the material deprivation of one's surroundings and the experiences of family and friends. There are both liberal and conservative interpretations of the culture of poverty: the former argues that lack of work and opportunities for mobility have concentrated disadvantage and left people feeling as if they have no way out of their situation; the latter believe that welfare payments and government intervention normalize and incentivize relying on welfare, not working, and having children out of wedlock, and consequently transmit social norms supporting dependency to future generations. [2]

Poverty reduction

Reducing poverty and reducing dependence are not equivalent. Cutting the number of individuals receiving welfare payments does not mean that poverty itself has been proportionally reduced because many people with incomes below the official poverty line may not be receiving the transfer payments they may have been entitled to in previous years. For example, in the early 1980s there was a particularly large discrepancy between the official poverty rate and the number of AFDC recipients due to major government cuts in AFDC provision in the USA. [9] As a result, many people who previously would have been entitled to welfare benefits no longer received them – an example of increasing official measures of poverty but decreasing dependence. While official welfare rolls were halved between 1996 and 2000, many working poor families were still reliant on government aid in the form of unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and assistance with food and childcare. [33]

Changes in the practices surrounding the administration of welfare may obscure continuing problems with poverty and failures to change the discourse in the face of new evidence. Whereas in the 1980s and much of the 1990s discussions of problems with welfare centered on dependency, the focus in more recent years has come to rest on working poverty. [34] The behavior of this particular group of poor people has changed, but their poverty has not been eliminated. Poverty rates in the United States have risen since the implementation of welfare reform. [35] States that maintain more generous welfare benefits tend to have fewer people living below the poverty line, even if only pre-transfer income is considered. [36]

In the United Kingdom

The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government that took office in May 2010 set out to reduce welfare dependency, primarily relying on workfare and initiatives targeted to specific groups, such as disabled people, who are more likely to spend long periods of time receiving welfare payments. The Department for Work and Pensions has released a report claiming that Disability Living Allowance, the main payment given to people who are severely disabled, "can act as a barrier to work" and causes some recipients to become dependent on it as a source of income rather than looking for a suitable job. [37] Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary for Work and Pensions, has argued that the United Kingdom has a culture of welfare dependency and a "broken" welfare system where a person would be financially better off living on state benefits than taking a job paying less than £15,000 annually. [38] Critics argue that this is the government's excuse to execute large-scale cuts in services, and that it perpetuates the stereotype that people on Incapacity Benefit or Disability Living Allowance are unwilling to work, faking their condition, or otherwise being "scroungers". [39]

The previous Labour government introduced active labour market policies intended to reduce welfare dependency, an example of the Third Way philosophy favored by prime minister Tony Blair. The New Deal programs, targeted towards different groups of long-term unemployed people such as lone parents, young people, disabled people, and musicians, gave the government the ability to stop the benefit payments of people who did not accept reasonable offers of employment.

In India

Technological and Economic Shifts: Addressing the Gig Economy and Welfare Dependency in India

The advent of the gig economy, characterized by flexible, temporary, or freelance jobs, often facilitated by technology platforms, poses significant challenges and opportunities for India's labor market and social security systems. The Ministry of Labour and Employment's introduction of the e-Shram portal in September 2021 marks a pivotal step toward acknowledging and addressing these challenges. The portal aims to create a comprehensive national database of unorganized workers, including those engaged in gig and platform-based work, to extend employment and social security benefits to this rapidly expanding workforce segment. [40]

India's gig economy, driven by technology platforms such as Swiggy, Uber, and Urban Company, is expected to encompass an estimated 90 million workers. This shift not only redefines the traditional concept of unorganized labor but also projects a significant economic impact, with ASSOCHAM estimating the gig economy's growth to reach USD 455 billion by 2024. [40] However, this expansion also risks leaving many gig workers without adequate labor welfare and social security protections due to the nature of their employment, which often lacks the traditional employer-employee relationship and associated benefits. [40]

The current labor welfare delivery system in India, largely based on a singular employer paradigm, faces challenges in accommodating the gig economy's multi-contract, flexible nature of work. This disconnect necessitates a reimagining of welfare delivery mechanisms to ensure that gig workers, who often move between multiple platforms and jobs, do not fall through the cracks of social security systems. [40]

Digital initiatives, such as the e-Shram portal, along with innovations in LendTech and InsurTech sectors, offer pathways to bridge these gaps. Yet, their effectiveness is currently limited, highlighting the need for further innovation and integration of digital platforms to improve labor welfare delivery. The government, civil society organizations, and technology platforms are urged to collaborate to streamline worker registration processes, reduce redundancies, and ensure comprehensive coverage of social security benefits for gig workers. [40]

In addressing these challenges, India stands at the forefront of digital labor welfare innovation, with the potential to set a precedent for other countries grappling with similar issues stemming from the gig economy's rise. The effective integration of technology, policy innovation, and collaborative stakeholder engagement will be key to harnessing the gig economy's benefits while mitigating its risks to worker welfare and social security. [40]

In Indonesia

Criticisms around social safety nets often rise due to the misconception that it incentivize people to be welfare dependent. However, more often than not, welfare programs are helpful in the sense that it provides people the means to achieve financial independence [41] rather than enabling people to be welfare dependent. Rema Hanna and co-authors studied Indonesia's Program Keluarga Harapan (Hopeful Family Program), Indonesia's primary Conditional Cash Transfer scheme for the poor, to determine if social programs breeds welfare dependency or independency.

Program Keluarga Harapan, or PKH for short, intends to improve outcomes on 3 dimensions within Indonesia: Health, Education, and Economic outcomes. [42] PKH targets extremely low-income households and determine if they are financially eligible or not for the program. If deemed eligible, families are then weighted on ensuing demographic requirements:

Families will then receive quarterly cash transfers (usually around 1/5th of total household annual income) based on financial eligibility and demographic requirements.

Rema and co-authors found that within 2 years of the initial launch, the PKH program had positive impacts amongst health and educational outcomes. [43] PKH answers the welfare dependency question and highlighted that social programs can lead to independency, especially in longer-term welfare programs focusing on education and health. [41]

In Russia and other post-Soviet states

Russia's recent developments in welfare policy have arguably weakened welfare dependency by marking a shift from statist social policy to relatively more diversified and inclusive approaches. This is seen in the attempts to integrate marginalized groups and individuals within the communities, thereby shifting the source of welfare from the government to the community: this is exemplified by the 'active aging' policies which aim to improve the agency and self-determination of older individuals. [44] The government's resources, on the other hand, have been channeled towards the Russo-Ukrainian war. It has been estimated by US official's that Russia's operations in Ukraine have cost approximately $211 billion. [45]

However, the recent decrease in welfare dependency in Russia is consistent with a general trend of declining welfare dependency since the fall of the Soviet Union. In the majority of post-Soviet states, this decline stemmed from the states’ inability to meet the needs of society: following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the region experienced significant economic challenges and political transformations. [46] For instance, social marginalization became deeply entrenched in post-Soviet Russian society, with a substantial portion of the population still considered 'poor' in 2004. This persistence of poverty, despite GDP growth, highlights the ongoing struggle of individuals to access basic necessities, including adequate healthcare and living essentials. The former soviet states’ efforts to reduce poverty levels have been undermined by factors such as low wages, unpaid pensions, and challenges in the healthcare and education sectors, further reducing the scale of welfare dependency. [47]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare spending</span> Means-oriented social benefit

Welfare spending is a type of government support intended to ensure that members of a society can meet basic human needs such as food and shelter. Social security may either be synonymous with welfare, or refer specifically to social insurance programs which provide support only to those who have previously contributed, as opposed to social assistance programs which provide support on the basis of need alone. The International Labour Organization defines social security as covering support for those in old age, support for the maintenance of children, medical treatment, parental and sick leave, unemployment and disability benefits, and support for sufferers of occupational injury.

Welfare reforms are changes in the operation of a given welfare system aimed at improving the efficiency, equity and administration of government assistance programs. Reform programs may have a various aims, sometimes the focus is on reducing the number of individuals receiving government assistance and welfare system expenditure, at other times reforms may aim to ensure greater fairness, effectiveness and allocation of welfare for those in need. Classical liberals, libertarians, and conservatives generally argue that welfare and other tax-funded services reduce incentives to work, exacerbate the free-rider problem, and intensify poverty. On the other hand social democrats and socialists generally criticize welfare reforms that minimize the public safety net and strengthens the capitalist economic system. Welfare reform is constantly debated because of the varying opinions on a government's need to balance providing guaranteed welfare benefits and promoting self-sufficiency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aid to Families with Dependent Children</span> Federal assistance program in the U.S. from 1935 to 1997

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was a federal assistance program in the United States in effect from 1935 to 1997, created by the Social Security Act (SSA) and administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provided financial assistance to children whose families had low or no income.

Workfare is a governmental plan under which welfare recipients are required to accept public-service jobs or to participate in job training. Many countries around the world have adopted workfare to reduce poverty among able-bodied adults; however, their approaches to execution vary. The United States and United Kingdom are two countries utilizing workfare, albeit with different backgrounds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Temporary Assistance for Needy Families</span> U.S. federal aid program

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is a federal assistance program of the United States. It began on July 1, 1997, and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, providing cash assistance to indigent American families through the United States Department of Health and Human Services. TANF is often regarded as just "welfare", but some argue this is a misnomer. Unlike AFDC, which provided a guaranteed cash benefit to eligible families, TANF is a block grant to states that creates no federal entitlement to welfare and is used by states to provide non-welfare services, including educational services, to employed people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act</span> United States welfare reform law

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The bill implemented major changes to U.S. social welfare policy, replacing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

In 2004, the New Zealand Labour government introduced the Working for Families package as part of the 2004 budget. The package, which effectively commenced operating on 1 April 2005, had three primary aims: to make work pay; to ensure income adequacy; and to support people "into work".

A "welfare queen" is a derogatory term used in the United States to describe individuals who are perceived to misuse or abuse the welfare system, often through fraudulent means, child endangerment, or manipulation. The media's coverage of welfare fraud began in the early 1960s and was featured in general-interest publications such as Reader's Digest. The term gained widespread recognition following media reporting in 1974 regarding the case of Linda Taylor. It was further popularized by Ronald Reagan during Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign when he frequently embellished Taylor's story in his speeches.

Social security, in Australia, refers to a system of social welfare payments provided by Australian Government to eligible Australian citizens, permanent residents, and limited international visitors. These payments are almost always administered by Centrelink, a program of Services Australia. In Australia, most payments are means tested.

The welfare trap theory asserts that taxation and welfare systems can jointly contribute to keep people on social insurance because the withdrawal of means-tested benefits that comes with entering low-paid work causes there to be no significant increase in total income. According to this theory, an individual sees that the opportunity cost of getting a better paying job is too great for too little a financial return, and this can create a perverse incentive to not pursue a better paying job.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social programs in the United States</span>

In the United States, the federal and state social programs including cash assistance, health insurance, food assistance, housing subsidies, energy and utilities subsidies, and education and childcare assistance. Similar benefits are sometimes provided by the private sector either through policy mandates or on a voluntary basis. Employer-sponsored health insurance is an example of this.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Welfare's effect on poverty</span>

The effects of social welfare on poverty have been the subject of various studies.

Welfare culture refers to the behavioral consequences of providing poverty relief to low-income individuals. Welfare is considered a type of social protection, which may come in the form of remittances, such as 'welfare checks', or subsidized services, such as free/reduced healthcare, affordable housing, and more. Pierson (2006) has acknowledged that, like poverty, welfare creates behavioral ramifications, and that studies differ regarding whether welfare empowers individuals or breeds dependence on government aid. Pierson also acknowledges that the evidence of the behavioral effects of welfare varies across countries, because different countries implement different systems of welfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of welfare</span> Social philosophy

The modern welfare state has been criticized on economic and moral grounds from all ends of the political spectrum. Many have argued that the provision of tax-funded services or transfer payments reduces the incentive for workers to seek employment, thereby reducing the need to work, reducing the rewards of work and exacerbating poverty. On the other hand, socialists typically criticize the welfare state as championed by social democrats as an attempt to legitimize and strengthen the capitalist economic system which conflicts with the socialist goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist economic system.

The California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program is the California welfare implementation of the federal welfare-to-work Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program that provides cash aid and services to eligible needy California families.

The Supporting Healthy Marriage Project (SHM) is part of the Healthy Marriage Initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, that was launched in 2003 as "the first large-scale, multisite, multiyear, rigorous test of marriage education programs for low-income married couples". The project is motivated by research that "indicates that married adults and children raised by both parents in stable, low-conflict households do better on a host of outcomes". The evaluation is led by MDRC, in collaboration with Abt Associates and other partners. USASpending.gov reports payments of more than $30 million from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to MDRC for work on the Supporting Healthy Marriage Project from 2009 to 2012.

Child benefits in the United Kingdom are a series of welfare payments and tax credits made to parents with children in the UK, a major part of the welfare state.

Rhode Island Works is a program intended to provide financial and employment services for needy families in order to give children a healthy growth. The program was intended to provide families of low income the necessary aids such as food, shelter, clothing, child care, and medical care as well as assisting parents in finding employment. Applicants for the program are eligible if they are living in the state of Rhode of Island and also if they meet the Department of Human Services eligibility requirements that are set forth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Assistance Plan</span> Welfare program

The Family Assistance Plan (FAP) was a welfare program introduced by President Richard Nixon in August 1969, which aimed to implement a negative income tax for households with working parents. The FAP was influenced by President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty program that aimed to expand welfare across all American citizens, especially for working-class Americans. Nixon intended for the FAP to replace existing welfare programs such as the Aid to Assist Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program as a way to attract conservative voters that were beginning to become wary of welfare while maintaining middle-class constituencies. The FAP specifically provided aid assistance to working-class Americans, dividing benefits based on age, the number of children, family income, and eligibility. Initially, the Nixon administration thought the FAP legislation would easily pass through the House of Representatives and the more liberal Senate, as both chambers were controlled by the Democratic Party. In June 1971, the FAP under the bill H.R. 1 during the 92nd Congress, passed in the House of Representatives. However, from December 1971 to June 1972 H.R.1 bill that included the FAP underwent scrutiny in the Senate chamber, particularly by the Senate Finance Committee controlled by the conservative Democrats, while the Republicans were also reluctant on passing the program. Eventually, on October 5 of 1972, a revised version of H.R.1 passed the Senate with a vote of 68-5 that only authorized funding for FAP testing before its implementation. During House-Senate reconciliation, before Nixon signed the bill on October 15, 1972, the entire provision on FAP was dropped. The FAP enjoyed broad support from Americans across different regions. Reception towards the program varied across racial, regional, income, and gender differences. The FAP is best remembered for beginning the rhetoric against the expansion of welfare that was popular during the New Deal. It initiated the support for anti-welfare conservative movements that became mainstream in American political discourse during the Reagan era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mothers' pensions</span> Cash payment programs to poor single mothers in the United States during the 20th century

Mothers' pensions, also referred to as mothers' aid or widows' aid, were cash payments distributed to impoverished single mothers in the United States during the first three decades of the 20th century. Introduced during the Progressive Era, they were among the earliest components of the modern American welfare state and were the first public cash assistance programs targeted to single mothers.

References

  1. 1 2 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence
  2. 1 2 3 Mary Jo Bane; David T. Ellwood (1996). Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN   9780674949133.
  3. ↑ Katz, M. (1989) The Undeserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War of Welfare. New York: Pantheon Books.
  4. ↑ H. J. Gans (1995). The War Against the Poor: The Underclass and Antipoverty Policy . New York: Basic Books.
  5. ↑ Gans (1995), p. 12
  6. ↑ Brendon O'Connor. "The Intellectual Origins of 'Welfare Dependency'". Australian Journal of Social Issues.
  7. ↑ Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor (1965). The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Bane, Mary Jo; Ellwood, David T. (1986). "Slipping into and out of Poverty: The Dynamics of Spells" (PDF). Journal of Human Resources . 21 (1): 1–23. doi:10.2307/145955. JSTOR   145955.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Catherine S. Chilman (1992). "Welfare reform or revision? The Family Support Act of 1988". Social Service Review. 66 (3): 349–377. doi:10.1086/603927. JSTOR   30012465. S2CID   154057142.
  10. ↑ Mead, L.M. (1986). Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Free Press.
  11. 1 2 Kathleen Mullan Harris (1991). "Teenage mothers and welfare dependency: working off welfare". Journal of Family Issues. 12 (4): 492–518. doi:10.1177/019251391012004006. S2CID   155009819.
  12. ↑ The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and Associated Legislation
  13. ↑ National Poverty Center: Brief Number 7.
  14. ↑ ACF Office of Public Affairs http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html
  15. 1 2 Edin, K.; Lein, L. (1997). "Work, Welfare, and Single Mothers' Economic Survival Strategies". American Sociological Review . 62 (2): 253–266. doi:10.2307/2657303. JSTOR   2657303.
  16. 1 2 3 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Executive Summary
  17. ↑ "The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism" (PDF). Gøsta Esping-Andersen. 1990. pp. 9–12.
  18. ↑ "2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence: Introduction and Overview". Aspe.hhs.gov. Retrieved 2013-02-11.
  19. 1 2 https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=19+Harv.+Women's+L.J.+201&key=e89aade25815b1960f86bfb91d565a5c Raphael, Jody (1996) "Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt: Toward a New Feminist Theory of Welfare Dependency." Harvard Women's Law Journal.
  20. 1 2 3 Patricia Ruggles (1989). Welfare dependency and its causes: determinants of the duration of welfare spells (PDF). Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, New York.
  21. 1 2 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence
  22. ↑ Moore, K. A. (1978). "Teenage Childbirth and Welfare Dependency". Family Planning Perspectives. 10 (4): 233–235. doi:10.2307/2134271. JSTOR   2134271. PMID   567594.
  23. ↑ Darity, William A. Jr; Myers, S. L. Jr (1983). "Changes in Black Family Structure: Implications for Welfare Dependency". American Economic Review . 73 (2): 59–64. JSTOR   1816815.
  24. ↑ Wilson, W. J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged
  25. ↑ Darity, W. Jr; Myers, S. L. Jr (1984). "Does Welfare Dependency Cause Female Headship? The Case of the Black Family". Journal of Marriage and Family. 46 (4): 765–779. doi:10.2307/352525. JSTOR   352525. S2CID   145569930.
  26. ↑ Antel, John J. (1992). "The Intergenerational Transmission of Welfare Dependency: Some Statistical Evidence". Review of Economics and Statistics . 74 (3): 467–473. doi:10.2307/2109491. JSTOR   2109491.
  27. ↑ Acs, Gregory & Toder, Eric (2006). "Should we subsidize work? Welfare reform, the earned income tax credit and optimal transfers." International Tax and Public Finance, 14:3, 327–343.
  28. ↑ Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Female Offenders Use of Social Welfare Programs Before and After Jail and Prison: Does Prison Cause Welfare Dependency?, November 2006
  29. ↑ Kasarda, J.D. and Ting, K. (1996). Joblessness and Poverty in America's Central Cities: Causes and Policy Prescriptions
  30. ↑ Keith R. Ihlanfeldt & David L. Sjoquist (1998). "The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform". Housing Policy Debate. 9 (4): 849–892. doi:10.1080/10511482.1998.9521321.
  31. ↑ Bay Area Social Services Consortium, Understanding Poverty from Multiple Social Science Perspectives
  32. 1 2 "TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  33. ↑ Welfare Reform: Ten Years Later The Urban Institute
  34. ↑ O'Connor, A. (2000). "Poverty Research and Policy for the Post-Welfare Era." Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 547-562.
  35. ↑ Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States U.S. Census Bureau, 2009
  36. ↑ States that Are More Generous With Cash Welfare Have Less Poverty Politics that Work
  37. ↑ Disability Living Allowance and work: Exploratory research and evidence review, 2010, DWP Research Report No. 648 (RR No. 648)
  38. ↑ "Iain Duncan Smith Vows to Tackle 'Absurd' Welfare Dependency" http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/27/iain-duncan-smith-welfare-dependency
  39. ↑ "The Broken Of Britain: Our Mission". Thebrokenofbritain.blogspot.com. 2011-01-15. Retrieved 2013-02-11.
  40. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Reimagining welfare delivery for gig workers". India Development Review. HARSHITA SINHA, RUSHIL PALAVAJJHALA. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
  41. 1 2 "New research busts the myth of welfare dependency". World Economic Forum. 12 August 2019. Retrieved 2022-05-29.
  42. 1 2 3 Cahyadi, Nur; Hanna, Rema; Olken, Benjamin A.; Prima, Rizal Adi; Satriawan, Elan; Syamsulhakim, Ekki (November 2020). "Cumulative Impacts of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs: Experimental Evidence from Indonesia". American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 12 (4): 88–110. doi: 10.1257/pol.20190245 . hdl: 1721.1/130933 . ISSN   1945-7731. S2CID   85521217.
  43. ↑ PKH Conditional Cash Transfer. World Bank. February 2012. doi:10.1596/26697.
  44. ↑ Cook, L. J., & Iarskaia-Smirnova, E. (2023). Welfare Reforms in Post-Soviet States: Current Issues and Research Highlights. Europe-Asia Studies, 75(2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2023.2168875
  45. ↑ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-operations-ukraine-have-probably-cost-up-211-billion-us-official-2024-02-16/
  46. ↑ Slay, B. (2009). Poverty, Inequality, and Social Policy Reform in the Former Soviet Union. United Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/eurasia/Poverty-inequality-and-social-policy-reform-in-the-former-Soviet-Union.pdf
  47. ↑ Round, J., & Kosterina, E. (2005). The construction of 'poverty' in post-Soviet Russia. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 6(3), 403-434. DOI: 10.1080/15705850508438926. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15705850508438926
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.